2005/11/8, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) rowikipedia@yahoo.com:
As to the 250 Wikipedias are better than 40 argument, what I was referring to is the fact that what sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias - one of the things that sets is apart - is that it is available in so many languages, many of which don't normally receive Internet exposure. I find it amazing that there's a Wikipedia in Voro, or that there's a Wikipedia in so many Filipino languages, or in Breton, or in Cornish!
I don't disagree with you at that point. I'm certainly happy that those exist (although the Bretons have given me some headaches in the interwikis...). I do however think that that is not an argument to just open the door to anyone who thinks he knows some nice language to add. But it seems we're much closer on this than appears from our correspondence to now.
To go into more constructive writing: I think that the major problem at the moment is not that we are accepting too much (although I do think it's a good thing that we got rid of Tokipona, I also think it would not get through at the current time), nor that we are accepting too little (although there are a few proposals that I think would better have been accepted), but that the procedure as such is too long and unclear. I think there should be a person or group of people who have the power to make the decisions, and that when a request has come in, there will be a certain small amount of time (let's say 2 weeks) after which either a Wikipedia has been created, the proposal rejected or the submitter been asked told what is lacking to get it accepted.
That's why I say that for every new proposal, we need concensus on whether that proposal is a language, but nothing else - none of this "is it necessary?" business, which I think sets a dangerous precent. The Low Saxon Wikipedia is useful, the Frisian Wikipedia is useful, the Voro Wikipedia is useful. All of these Wikipedias should stay and similar cases should be approved in the future.
I agree that these Wikipedias should be accepted, but I don't agree that being a language should be the only point of decision. I have in the past made exceptions for conlangs (in my opinion a Wikipedia should be set up in a language to provide information to people using that language, not the mere fun of writing or reading in that language) and dead languages (same reason). Here we see languages that can be considered dialects of another language as an exception. There have also been worries about languages that are so small that they are unlikely to get a real userbase. Finally, minority languages also often suffer from not having a defined orthography.
I guess that none of these would be a no-no for all languages in the category, but I do guess that one could raise the bar for some of these - not allowing them to start at the insistence of a single person, but going ahead if there is a group of prospective contributors.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels